Evidence of meeting #32 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Glenn Gilmour  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Wayne Cole  greffier à la procedure

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

Mr. Murphy.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

The rule of interpretation that the most narrow interpretation should be used in terms of an accused seems the correct one; therefore, this really is a “suicide bombing” bill to amend the Criminal Code.

However, I live and breathe this bilingual mentality and ethos in Moncton, New Brunswick. That's the centre of bilingualism, right? And I just can't imagine....

Usually that statutory interpretation rule is used where unwittingly Parliament has two versions that are different. They didn't do it on purpose. We're almost saying that we're going to do this on purpose: we're going to have suicide bombings on one end and suicide attacks on the other, knowing, therefore, that the courts will interpret it as suicide bombings.

It's almost like deliberately bad drafting, so part of me says that we can't do that. On the other hand, what we heard from you, and what I believe, is that the glue needed to fix any ambiguity in the existing section is to specify suicide bombings. We have a Conservative government that is also supporting an amendment that is very narrow and precise and surgical--congratulations.

So I'm somewhat torn on the amendment. But we have to draft legislation in both languages that, as far as we know, accord with each other.

For that reason, I believe I'm going to support Mr. Ménard's amendment. It shouldn't be against the idea that we're doing something good for attacking the idea of suicide bombings or attacks; it's indeed broader. Mr. Ménard raises the question of whether that is covered by the section as it exists; I don't suppose we're doing any harm, and at least his amendment makes us adopt two versions that are in accord, as far as I can tell.

That's where I am on the amendment.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Okay.

We have Mr. Woodworth and then Mr. Rathgeber.

October 28th, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I too am sympathetic with the notion that the French and English should be in accord; however, if we are to do that, in my view we ought to do it in a way that respects the intention of the bill. In other words, if there is--I don't want to call it a mistranslation--an inconsistency in the French translation of “suicide bombing,” then in my view the correct remedy would be to correct or amend the French version so that it is consistent with the intention of the bill, which is to refer to suicide bombing.

To me, it would be compounding the error to amend the English version to something that quite clearly was not intended by the bill or its drafter. I will be opposing Mr. Ménard's amendment, but I would be favourable toward some solution that might deal with the problem in an appropriate way.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Chair, I concur with Mr. Woodworth.

It appears to me that the problem, if we can assume.... When Mr. Murphy was in the chair, he assumed that if Senator Grafstein was the author of the original bill, it was likely drafted in English. I think that's a reasonable supposition.

So the problem is not with the English translation, the problem is with the French translation of Senator Grafstein's original intent. I wonder, then, if it's not the French version that ought to be amended. I understand that the phrase “les attentats suicides à la bombe” might more accurately reflect the English version.

I agree with Mr. Woodworth that this is the appropriate way to resolve this discrepancy.

I will be voting against Mr. Ménard's motion unless he will allow me a friendly amendment to his motion to amend the French version.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

What's your wish, Monsieur Ménard?

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Personally, I think the term “suicide attack” is preferable.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Go ahead, Mr. Plamondon.

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we're not just talking about the similarity of the English and French versions. We have to properly interpret the framer's intent. The intent is to address suicide attacks, and not just suicide bombings. That seems obvious to me.

As my colleague was saying, if we were to rely only on the English version, the 9/11 attacks would not be included. And yet they were the worst suicide attacks in the history of humanity. We need to understand the intent of the framer of the bill. It is quite clear that he meant to refer to suicide attacks in general. In that case, the proper term would be “suicide attacks” and not “suicide bombings”. That seems perfectly obvious to me.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Before we go to Monsieur Petit and then to Mr. Rathgeber, if it's all right with you, I'd like to hear from Mr. Gilmour.

Do you have any comments on what you've heard so far in the debate on the words “attack” and “bombings”?

4:10 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Glenn Gilmour

Well, I think that in English certainly, the word suicide “attack” is broader in scope than suicide “bombing”. We've been discussing whether or not 9/11 was in fact a suicide bombing and whether it would fall within the suicide bombing aspect. I'm afraid that to the extent there was an explosion that occurred as a result, I think an argument can be made that it was a bombing—although not specifically a bomb in the sense that there was not a timer attached to it.

I guess it's a question of the policy that Parliament wishes to follow. Consider the example of a suicide attacker who does not use a suicide bomb but firearms, with the intention of killing as many people as he or she possibly can, and not blowing himself or herself up but being killed in the process by others. That would be an instance of a suicide attack that does not involve a suicide bomb.

However, I believe the intention behind this bill was to focus on suicide bombing. If I recall correctly, I think one of the organizations, for example.... I believe the term suicide “bombing” was the term that was frequently used in this bill originally and in the discussions of this bill, and so I would be inclined to try to focus on the suicide bombing aspect of that bill. I may be incorrect, but certainly my understanding is that it was the intention to focus on suicide bombing as the evil to be particularly denounced.

So I'll just leave it at that.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Now we have Monsieur Petit.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's compare the previous bills with the one we are examining today. When the proponent tabled his bill in the Senate—he is now retired—his intention was to including what are known as “suicide bombings”. He focused on that and proposed a bill to address what are known as “suicide bombings”. He particularly wanted to focus on that issue.

In spite of my understanding and Mr. Ménard's understanding, I have no choice but to say that I cannot support his amendment. It does not reflect the intent behind this bill. I understand that the intent is broader, but Bill S-215 is meant to address bombings. Therefore, I have no choice but to vote against his amendment and support the English version of the bill in this case. I sense that this is what the senator wanted, as opposed to a provision of general application.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Woodworth.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you.

I have the impression that Ms. Block was the sponsor of this bill in the House, so we can look at the record of proceedings in the House. We don't really have to resort to whatever might have been Senator Grafstein's intention.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I'd like to read into the record the excerpt from Hansard in which Ms. Block speaks to the introduction of this bill. I have to assume that it would have been on first or second reading. I'll just give you the relevant extracts. Her words were as follows:

Please allow me to provide an explanation of the contents of this bill for the benefit of all hon. members. The bill seeks to explicitly include the act of suicide bombing within the context of the Criminal Code definition of “terrorist activity”. Suicide bombing is a monstrous way to wreak havoc because it shows the utmost contempt for human life.

Elsewhere she stated as follows:

Explicitly including “suicide bombing” in the definition would also serve to denounce this horrendous practice and to educate the public that such suicide bombing is repugnant to Canadian values.

Finally, elsewhere she stated as follows:

For these reasons, I agree that there are benefits in making an exclusive reference to suicide bombing in the definition of “terrorist activity”. However, it is also important in doing so not to adversely affect the current definition of terrorist activity. Fortunately, this bill has been drafted with precision in order to address this concern.

Clearly, if I'm right that Ms. Block was the sponsor of the bill in the House, she has placed on the record in Hansard her intention with respect to the bill, and in a way has issued an implicit caution that the bill is drafted with precision in order to ensure that it doesn't adversely affect the current definition of “terrorist activity”.

For this reason, I would strongly counsel my colleagues to maintain the intention that was expressed in the House when this bill was introduced and spoken to by Ms. Block, and to avoid any proposal, such as would be contained in Mr. Ménard's amendment, to widen the scope of the bill beyond “bombing”.

Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

Next we have Mr. Rathgeber.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The committee is really getting ahead of itself. We've really gone off the topic here.

The Criminal Code, in existing section 83.01, has a very exhaustive definition of “terrorist activity”. There are 11 paragraphs that fall under section 83.01, and I'll just read one of them. There is some concern, if I'm understanding my friends on the other side of the table correctly, that the 9/11 attacks somehow would not be captured by this bill, and I think they're right, but what they're missing is that it's already covered by section 83.01 of the Criminal Code.

One of the current definitions of “terrorist activity” is in subparagraph 83.01(1)(a)(ii):

the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,

If my friends on the other side of the table are having trouble understanding that we're trying to make sure that “terrorist activity” includes suicide bombing, that is what this amendment is meant to do. That's not the exhaustive definition of “terrorist activity”; that's in addition to the 11 paragraphs that are currently contained in section 83.01.

For those reasons and the reasons outlined by Mr. Woodworth, we need to vote against Mr. Ménard's proposed amendment. If there is some concern about the difference between the French and English translations, the committee should accept my solution and amend the French version to make it narrower.

Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Does anybody else want to speak to this matter?

Go ahead, Mr. Norlock.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Mr. Chair, I know by the indication of this e-mail that all members of this committee received a communication from Canadians Against Suicide Bombing, the president and vice-president of which are the Honourable Reuben Bromstein and Dr. Salim Mansur respectively. They refer to evidence given before the Senate committee by distinguished Canadian criminal lawyers, including the chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, recommending that this bill be passed.

Let's just go with the English interpretation and get on with it.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

All right.

We have Mr. Lee next.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

I think all parties around the table here support the bill, the thrust of the bill and the objective of the bill. The glitch that we've uncovered is a discrepancy between the English and the French. It's tangible, it's material, and the question is whether we should fix it here, which would require the bill to go back to the Senate. That isn't a huge problem, as I'm sure it will go through there in about 10 minutes. But Monsieur Ménard's amendment can be put, and be adopted or not.

Someone described a friendly amendment to that. It doesn't have to be a friendly amendment, but can just be an amendment that comes forward in a way that would address the apparent discrepancy. I'd be prepared to support that. It's not rocket science, apparently. It's just to get some words en français that emulate “suicide bombing” rather than “suicide attack”.

If any members opposite had such a wording to propose as an amendment, I'd probably support it. I can't speak for anyone else here, but we should try that. If it's not going to work, then let's just swallow the pill and move on.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Monsieur Ménard, did you have a comment?

You're next, and then we're going to go to Monsieur Petit.

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

If I understood your suggestion earlier, you were wondering if I would accept a so-called “friendly” amendment.

I do not agree that the English wording should take precedence, but I have no objection to asking whether there is support for it, even though the amendment did not meet the deadline. I am going to try my best to convince you. Either the 9/11 attacks are covered by the previous definitions… I just read the definition of “terrorist activity” in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code. If the 9/11 attacks are captured by that, then this is not necessary; the alternative would be the need to specify that this type of activity is not… Or we have to specifically target suicide attacks.

Having said that, I have no objection to another amendment being proposed immediately, if mine is defeated.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

We're still dealing with Mr. Ménard's amendment, which is to change the word “bombings” in the English to the word “attacks”.

Monsieur Petit.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Chairman, given that this is a substantive issue, we must consider how the bill was framed by the proponent. Let's take Mr. Grafstein, for example; he drafted the bill in English and used the term “suicide bombings”. He knows what he wants.

However, the French translation uses the term referred to by Mr. Ménard, which is “attentat suicide” and the idea would be to use that term everywhere. Now if we rectify the translation… This goes back to what Mr. Murphy was saying earlier, when he was talking about his bilingual province… Supposing we come across what I would term a “typo”—in other words, that the term “bombings” was mistranslated. Would it not be better in that case to check to see whether we have to start the whole process all over again? I don't understand that.

The fact that we have a translation issue doesn't mean we have to go all the way back to the Senate. It's a translation issue; it is not necessarily a substantive issue. That's the important point. If Mr. Ménard's version is accepted, I think we may want to go along with the suggestion made by Mr. Brent, one of my colleagues, regarding the possibility of adding “attentats suicides à la bombe”. That could be a potential amendment, based on my colleague's position on this.